Rancor plagues Chronicle employee buyouts

120 to be told they can't reconsider applications and must resign

By Michael Stoll
Posted Sept. 16, 2005
Updated Sept. 20, 2005

UPDATE: The union has filed two grievances against
the San Francisco Chronicle's management based on the inability of staff
to reconsider buyout applications and the threat of as many as 30 involuntary
layoffs. See the memo below.

These
employees -- some of whom have worked for the Chronicle and/or
the Examiner for decades -- ... were given no time to review
the decision.

-- memo from union leader Doug Cuthbertson

Staffing cuts at the San Francisco Chronicle are happening more
swiftly than most people in the newsroom had anticipated, and in a manner
that's forced the resignations of some who apparently were not sure they
wanted to go.

About 120 Chronicle employees, including several of the paper's
well-known veteran journalists, have been or are soon to be told that they
must leave -- even though many thought they had time to reconsider their
earlier applications for an employee-buyout option.

Among those on their way out, according to several people in the newsroom:
columnist and editorial writer Ken Garcia, sports writer Glenn Dickey and
religion writer Don Lattin. So far about 90 people have been told to leave,
so more names will filter out over the next week.

The severance packages, which are designed to entice the most experienced
employees to leave, are also drawing fire from some local journalists who
warn that the paper could suffer a loss of institutional memory.

The Northern California Media Workers Guild -- the union representing about
900 employees at the Chronicle, half of them in the newsroom --
said it was surprised that management was telling union members they must
leave their jobs and accept a lump-sum payments without the chance to mull
their choices with family and financial advisers.

Michael Cabanatuan, a Chronicle reporter and president of the
union, said he was led to believe that some employees had a 45-day period
in which to withdraw their applications. "They're saying that if you
applied you've essentially offered to resign," Mr. Cabanatuan said.
"We obviously disagree."

The union told Chronicle staff this week that management had agreed
to make individual exceptions, but it wasn't clear under what circumstances.
A management spokeswoman, Patricia Hoyt, responded that the paper won't
budge on whom it wants out the door. She also declined to specify how many
jobs will be cut from the newsroom, and how many from other departments.

One Chronicle staffer who did not want to be identified said departing
workers received "no acknowledgment, not even a sheet cake, from the
managers. No thank you notes. No speeches. Everything but armed security
guards. It's ugly."

Some journalists said they could not talk on the record because they believed
documents they were made to sign under the agreement would prohibit them
from speaking ill of the paper. Others were waiting to hear a definitive
resolution before deciding what to do, if in fact they had a choice anymore.

People
put in for these buyouts. It shouldn't be a surprise that they were
accepted.

-- Chronicle spokeswoman Patricia Hoyt

Mr. Lattin, the religion writer, has written for the Chronicle,
and the Examiner before that, a total of 28 years. He's currently
on unpaid leave to write a book, and thinks he can make a living at it.
He applied for the buyout and was accepted. He wrote in an e-mail that he's
still "waiting to see the final numbers before making a final decision."

"If I go, I will also do some freelance writing, and may even get
a job at another newspaper," Mr. Lattin wrote. "I really don't
know at this point. I am considering any and all offers."

The notices of termination, starting Sept. 8, asked some employees to leave
by today -- sending waves of panic through the newsroom, several journalists
said. The union objected to management's approach and the two sides are
continuing to talk.

Ms. Hoyt, the Chronicle spokeswoman, said the language in the
application was clear: Employees agreed to give up their jobs when they
applied for the buyouts. For legal reasons, she said, those 40 years old
and older have 45 days in which to sign a "separation agreement"
that holds the paper immune from lawsuits and gags employees about trade
secrets -- but they did not have 45 days to decide whether or not to leave.
Those under 40 had no choice but to sign.

In exchange they get up to five weeks' worth of pay up-front for every
year of service, up to two years' pay. But the plan is weighted to nudge
older employees out: Including what they get from the existing retirement
plan, workers 55 and older get five weeks' pay for every year, those 40
and older get four, and those under 40 get three.

The latest round of buyouts comes after months of tense negotiations over
a contract that expired July 1. The Chronicle announced that it
was losing $62 million a year and needed to reduce its workforce.

After both sides braced for a strike, the union ratified a new contract
later that month that called for pay cuts for some, longer working hours
for part-time employees and other union concessions. The union's one clear
victory was an agreement that management would lay off workers selectively
only if fewer than 120 applied for the retirement-incentive package.

By this week at least 215 had applied. Since only 120 will be accepted,
the rest will keep their jobs, and there will presumably be no involuntary
layoffs.

The loss of 120 Guild positions will be the
steepest onetime workforce cut since 2000, when the staffs of the Chronicle
competing San Francisco Examiner merged in a takeover of the
Chronicle by the Examiner's owner, the Hearst Corporation.
The Guild estimates it has lost about 200 jobs at the Chronicle since
then through layoffs and attrition.

On Wednesday, the union sent out a memo that outlined
the union's objections, and said that management had agreed to "consider
on a case by case basis any objections" due to the misunderstanding
about the resignation clause, which management maintains gave employees
only until Aug. 31 -- before hearing word of their acceptance -- to retract.

The memo said in part: "this week some employees whose bid for a buyout
was accepted were told that they must leave their jobs by Friday of this
week, without having received a written final description of the terms of
the buyout. These employees -- some of whom have worked for the Chronicle
and/or the Examiner for decades -- also were given no time to review
the decision."

Ms. Hoyt said the union memo was not entirely accurate, and that management
would have an official response soon. She said the number of people told
to leave within one week was fewer than 25. She also declined to specify
how many of the guild members whose applications were accepted work in the
newsroom.

"People put in for these buyouts," she said. "It shouldn't
be a surprise that they were accepted. The people we've accepted are working
with their managers about when their departure date will be."

Paul Kleyman, editor of Aging Today and a board member of the
Northern California chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists,
said the move to rid the paper of experienced journalists sends the wrong
message to the newsroom.

"No doubt, some wanted the buyout, which is why they applied, and
will use it as a step into the next phase of their retirement or midlife
careers," he wrote in an e-mail.

But, he wrote, the strategy could be bad for journalism. "The pattern
of eliminating the most seasoned editorial staff -- often dismissed as 'old
war horses' or 'dead wood' who should make way for new talent -- should
raise alarms in local media about what I call the 'younging down' of the
media. News organizations need to consider the loss of institutional memory,
or knowledge depth about certain topics or the workings of public institutions,
of deep-bench Rolodexes, of the mentorship every department needs to train
new or emerging reporters."

One journalist who did not apply for the buyout, but still didn't want
to be named to avoid getting caught up in labor strife, had this to say
the buyout offer: "This is about as humane a way to trim staff as possible.
But they seem to be implementing it really badly."

Memo to the Chronicle staff from the Northern California Media
Workers Guild:

Memo to Chronicle Guild members
From Doug Cuthbertson, Executive Officer

In meetings this week, the
Chronicle has assured the Guild that its abrupt terminations of employees
who applied for the buyout will be halted.

Management representatives
said they would consider on a case by case basis any objections under
various circumstances:

° Employees may not want
to accept the buyouts even though they applied during the month of
August, on grounds they believed an offer would give them the option
of accepting or turning it down.

° Employees may want
to have the buyout documentation in hand to review for themselves,
and with family, financial counselors, etc., before making a decision
and signing off.

° Employees may want
to work out a termination date "in collaboration with" their
department head, as an early company Q&A sheet had promised.

° Some employees had
expected to have up to 45 days to consider the buyout document before
having to sign it, and up to 7 days after that to rescind the signature,
under legal provisions previously cited by the company in writing
and verbally by supervisors. The Guild had underscored this provision
in earlier memos and Q&A bulletins to members, after learning
of these terms from management representatives during the bargaining
process.

By way of background, this
week some employees whose bid for a buyout was accepted were told
that they must leave their jobs by Friday of this week, without having
received a written final description of the terms of the buyout. These
employees -- some of whom have worked for the Chronicle and/or the
Examiner for decades -- also were given no time to review the decision.

In its discussions with the
company, the Guild made a formal objection to one provision of the
management buyout acceptance letter which states that employees upon
acceptance are terminated no matter what. The Guild also made it clear
that we are prepared to litigate if the Chronicle moves ahead and
terminates employees without giving them time to consider their decision.

At this point, we don't know
how many employees who were granted the buyout now wish they had not
applied, or how many others have unanswered questions about how the
Company has handled their case. We ask that any employees with questions
about their status consult with their Guild representatives as soon
as possible. Krhodes@sfchronicle.com, dcuthbertson@mediaworkers.org
mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com

Finally, we have pointed
out to the company that such conduct on its part has a devastating
effect not only on the employees who are leaving but on those who
are remaining behind.

Today the Guild filed two
grievances in connection with the Chronicle’s administration
of the current Voluntary Reduction in Force Program.

The first grievance is based
on the Chronicle’s rejection of more than half the applicants
for voluntary termination buyouts. More than 220 employees applied
for 120 buyouts, but the Chronicle accepted only about 90. It apparently
intends to achieve the remainder of the cuts possibility as many as
30 positions by firing employees under the involuntary termination
provisions of the contract.

We are seeking as a remedy
that the Chronicle accept a reasonable number of applicants in order
to reduce or eliminate the number of involuntary terminations to which
it would resort in order to accomplish the overall goal of 120 job
cuts.

The second grievance arises
from the Chronicle’s refusal to permit some employees to withdraw
their name from consideration for voluntary termination during the
45-day period after August 31, 2005, after giving material misrepresentations
and/or omissions about employees’ rights to do so. Management
communications, both oral and written, and representations given the
Guild at the bargaining table, clearly led employees to believe they
would have 45 days to consider terminating their employment and accepting
a buyout, after they had been given written termination agreements.
The Guild and its members, and many managers, we believe, were stunned
when employees whose bids were accepted were told their terminations
were irreversible and they had no choice but to leave, with or without
buyout moneys

The Guild seeks as a remedy
in this second grievance:

That employees who have been
involuntarily terminated under the voluntary termination program be
reinstated with full seniority, back pay, and benefits, as well as
compensatory damages related to the Chronicle's violation of the agreement;
That the Chronicle rescind Gary Anderson's September 8, 2005 letter
regarding "Acceptance of Application for Voluntary termination”
and his September 16, 2005 memo to "all employees"; That
employees receive a 45 day period of time from the settlement of the
grievance within which to withdraw their name from consideration under
the voluntary termination program.

We have requested a meeting
with management over these grievances, which could move on to arbitration,
if not resolved.

• Leakers and
plumbers: There's no difference between a good leak and a bad leak?
Journalists need a shield law. 11/22/05
• Unintended
consequences: How Craigslist and similar services are sucking revenue
from faltering newspapers. 9/13/05
• Is CPB irrelevant?
As Congress moves to cut public broadcasting funds, has CPB become obsolete
in the modern marketplace. 6/26/05
• The paradox
of news: There's more news available and its cheaper than ever before,
but fewer young people are interested. 5/12/05

This site is
supported and maintained by the Grade the News project team.

Most recent updatesHow
the Bay Area's most popular media stack up.Talk
about Bay Area journalism in our on-line discussion forum.A
printable news scorecard you can use at home or in school.Raves
and rants aimed at the local media.What
would you do if you were the editor?Upcoming
happenings and calls for public action.Let
'em know! Contact a local newsroom.Codes
of ethics, local media advocates and journalism tools.Tip
us off about the local media, or tell us how we're doing.Oops.A
comprehensive list of past GTN exclusives.